Introduction

When Spanish explorers first touched groundon the Yucatán Peninsula in the early 16th century,they hit upon a major native civilization that wasdefinitely more sophisticated than anything theSpaniards had previously met in the New World.The region, that was later called Mesoamerica, wasdensely settled by complex agricultural populationsadministered by urbanized ruling elites,knowledgeable in reading and writing and eruditein astronomic and calendar recording. This culturalrealm was shared also by Mayan speaking groups.These occupied southern and eastern Mexico,Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, and El Salvador,extending as far south as to the Nicoya Peninsula ofCosta Rica on the Pacific side of Central America.

The whole area’s environmental setting isextremely varied, as well as its distribution oflanguages and ethnic groups that share its space.

The social development of the Maya world goesback to the second millennium b.C. Its climax, forwhich it is most known archaeologically (andtouristically), occurred during the so-called Classicperiod that ranges approximately between A.D.250 and A.D. 900, with specific chronologiesvarying among sites. The area’s magnificent sitesdeep in the tropical rain forest have charmed andtriggered the curiosity of many generations ofscholars. The ruined temples and architecturalstructures hidden by the dense vegetation stillwitness the power of an ancient culture that has notbeen fully uncovered yet. Nonetheless, as Stephensfirstly noted (1843), the ancient Maya people havenot disappeared in the mist of time, but have livedon to our days (Buikstra, 1997).

If the material culture left behind by thisancient civilization is what predominantly attractsthe attention of archaeologists and amateurs, oneimportant source of information has been left

JASs Invited Reviews

Past, present and future itineraries in Maya bioarchaeology

Andrea Cucina & Vera Tiesler

Facultad de Ciencias Antropológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, km 1 Carretera Merida-Tizimin,97305 Merida, Yucatán, Mexico; e-mail: cucina@tunku.uady.mx, vtiesler@yahoo.com

Summary – During the first half of the last century, studies of Maya skeletal remains gave emphasis mainlyto head shaping and dental decoration, while little or no attention was bestowed to the ancient Maya’s skeletalbiology and bioarchaeology. It was not until the late 1960’s and early 1970’s that more comprehensiveapproaches started visualizing this ancient society from its biological and cultural aspects by perceiving skeletalremains as a direct indicator of past cultural interactions. The recent growth in skeletal studies was also a naturalconsequence of the emergence of “bioarchaeology” as a specific discipline. From then on, increasing numbers ofstudies have been carried out, applying more and more sophisticated and modern techniques to the ancient Mayaskeletal remains. This works attempts to briefly review the research history on Maya skeletal remains, from thepioneering works in the 1960’s to the development of more conscientious approaches based on theoretical,methodological and practical concepts in which the individual is the basic unit of biocultural analysis. Although,ecological issues and the biological evidence of social status differences still remain central cores in Mayabioarchaeology, new methodologically and topically oriented approaches have proliferated in the last years. Theycontribute to the development of a more complete, wide-angled view of the intermingled biological and culturaldynamics of a population that has not disappeared in the past and that continues to raise the interest of scholarsand the public in general.

Keywords – Bioarchaeology, Ancient Maya, Biocultural studies.

Journal of Anthropological SciencesVol. 83 (2005), pp. 29-42

the JASs is published by the Istituto Italiano di Antropologia www.isita-org.com

relatively underutilized so far: the skeletal remainsof those who made up ancient society. Severalfactors account for this lack of attention. Firstly, theancient Maya did not bury their deads in cemeteriesbut most likely in close range of their livingquarters and to a much lesser extent in theceremonial edifices and public spaces of site’s cores.Since most of the archaeological explorations stillcenter their attention on the ceremonial centers,this condition naturally limits sample size, whilethe lack of true necropolises prevents systematicalrecovery of the skeletal assemblages (Tiesler, 1996;Cobos, 2003). Furthermore, the aggressive tropicalenvironment that characterizes most of the Mayaworld engenders the notoriously degraded state thatcharacterizes most human remains, translating intoreduced numbers of individuals, and lack ofinformation and analytical possibilities. Thissituation is further aggravated by modern looting,which specifically targets tombs. Apart from theabove circumstances, probably the most importantdrawbacks in bioarchaeological approaches are dueto the way archaeological research is conducted inthe Maya realm. Albeit this situation is starting tochange in recent years, many archaeologists stillappear to be unaware of the great potential thatskeletal data sets have in cultural reconstruction.

Conventional research of the Prehispanic Maya hasrelied almost exclusively on its material culture,while human remains have been treated asperipheral evidence, ending up in the annexes ofarchaeological reports or extricated works onskeletal biology, disengaged from majorinterdisciplinary ambitions for understanding thebroader social or biosocial networks of the past.From this perspective, much of past Mayaosteology appears therefore rather technical anddescriptive.

While present research goals in Mayaarchaeology are not particularly different fromthose pursued in the past decades (Smith, 1991),the paths to approach these goals have increasedconsiderably in number in recent years,incorporating epigraphic research, statistics and anincreasing amount of sophisticated special analyses.These multiple lines of evidence end up testing,reinforcing or opposing one another. Put to workwithin integrated frames of social studies, these maydramatically enhance the power of explanation(White, 1999). In the past twenty years, alsobiocultural approaches are gaining attention in theMayanist community, thanks to a new mind-set,awareness and profound dedication of newergenerations of scholars, coupled with attractivetechnical innovations. As noted by Buikstra (1997:223) already a decade ago, “it seems clear that thedegree to which physical anthropological dataassume prominence in archaeological inquiries alsohas to do with the theoretical orientation ofcontemporary archaeologists”.

The term “biocultural” refers to a large array offeatures in the human skeletal remains that arelinked to cultural elements despite their biologicalsubstrate. They define those traits that materializeconditions associated to the life cycle, like age anddeath, physionomy, living circumstances, nutritionand health, violence, and biocultural practices(Tiesler, 1999). Both aspects that make up thebiocultural concept are not conceived as separateentities but ideally envisioned as an indivisiblecomplex of entangled dynamics.

In recent years, the analysis of skeletal materialshas increasingly responded to parameters set forthby bioarchaeological agendas, which favorintegrated approaches that combine population andcultural data sets. “Bioarchaeology” may bedescribed broadly as a thematic specialization in

30 Maya Bioarchaeology

Figure 1 – Geographical map of the Maya areawith some of the major sites during the Classicand Postclassic periods.

archaeology or physical anthropology that studieshuman remains in their context and as part of thearchaeological body of information employingexplicit biocultural approximations (Blakely, 1977;Powell et al., 1991; Klepinger, 1992; Owsley andJantz, 1994; Konigsberg and Buikstra, 1995;Buikstra, 1997; Larsen, 1997). In this review, wewish to briefly trace the advances reached bybioarchaeology in the Maya area since the early,pioneering anthropological approaches in the1960s.

Frameworks in Maya bioarchaeology

The sociocultural development of mankind hasbeen conditioned by its human biologicalproperties. Nevertheless in practice we tend toenvision humanity in the somewhat artificialcategories of “organism” “social” and“psychological”. Similarly, the “archaeologicalbeing”, i.e. human vestiges, display a vast array offeatures that are both inherited and generatedduring life, as are health record, habits or livingconditions. From this perspective, the analysis ofskeletal remains is of paramount importance bothfor social and anthropological sciences, archaeologyin particular. What varies between both approachesis the specific research tools, the immediate objectof study and the kind of data: material cultureversus skeletal materials. Regarding Maya research,it is no wonder that skeletal anthropology sharesseveral research topics with archaeology. Such is thecase in demographic and mortuary investigation,dynastic studies and the study of ritual expression.Regrettably, these subjects have mostly beenpursued more or less independently by each line.An integrated examination of both data sets,conducted within a coherent theoreticalframework, thus poses a challenge for this andfuture generations of scholars.

Skeletal studies on the ancient Maya set out ascase descriptions and standard inventories of smallskeletal collections that contained the basicinformation on (mainly cranial) morphology andmeasurements. Up to the middle of the last century,emphasis was placed on the skull and the practicesof head shaping and dental decoration, while noattention was bestowed on lifestyle issues orcontextual information beyond chronology.Comparisons with series from other parts of the

world still figure prominently in those earlyaccounts, revolving around diffusions orevolutional arguments. The lack of scholarlyinterest displayed by the archaeologists is expressedby the paucity of comparable skeletons from thearea, which led physical anthropologists likeStewart (1943, 1949: 114) to plea for more timeand effort in the recovery of human remains.Noteworthy is also Earnest Hooton’s pioneeringwork on the Sacred Cenote at Chichen Itzá (1940)in which he provided a fairly detailed butdescriptive account of the skeletal collectionrecovered in 1909. Hooton busts the myth of virginvictims by establishing that the majority ofindividuals are male, but makes no efforts to put hisfindings into context with the other materialsretrieved from the bottom of the Cenote.

More recently, works by Haviland (1967) andSaul (1972) have fostered a more systematic interestin Maya skeletal biology. As part of a broaderarchaeological investigation on Tikal, Havilandcompares the adult statures from different burialcontexts and settlement areas and concludes thatthe members of the elite were taller than the rest ofthe population. In a more comprehensive approach,Saul promotes “osteobiography” as a means to learnabout the ancient Maya and their life styles. Hespecifically attempts to provide new answers to thequestions of identity, origins, living conditions anddemise of the population at Altar de Sacrificios,Guatemala. Both Haviland’s and Saul’s work arenow considered landmark studies in Mayabioarchaeology in that their interpretations clearlylink skeletal data to cultural contexts. For the firsttime, human remains are treated as direct materialindicators of past cultural interaction, although itmay be argued that neither Saul nor Haviland laiddown any grounded conceptual schemes for theincorporation of skeletal studies. On themethodological side, sample size limitations andstatistical testing still didn’t seem to be of realconcern for either project. Saul’s ambitiousosteobiographic approximation to the Altarpopulation still appears quite unaware of the manypaleodemographic pitfalls that are inherent in anyattempt to infer about the living from the dead,especially considering the complex burial recordthat characterizes the ancient Maya. These andother issues were to be addressed moresystematically in the following years. Maya

31A. Cucina & V. Tiesler

bioarchaeology started to grow steadily during the‘80s, as more and more scholars dedicated theirinterests to this line of research mainly in Belize,Guatemala and Honduras (mostly Copan) (seeDanforth et al., 1997 and Wright 2004, for a reviewof literature).

The new biocultural interest in the Maya areawas also a side-product of a more general trend inanthropology and specifically the fields of physicalanthropology and the freshly reformulated “newarchaeology”. Bioarchaeology, as such, emerged aspart of this process during the seventies. Ideallydefined as a thematic specialization that studieshuman remains from a biocultural perspective andas an integrated part of the material culture, theterm ‘bioarchaeology” was coined in 1976 and waspromoted at first by Anglo-Saxon scholars (Blakely,1977; Buikstra, 1981; Powell, 1991; Larsen, 1997;see also Tiesler, 1996). These academics sought topromote a long due interdisciplinary cooperation inthe archaeological recovery and study of humanremains with the goal of obtaining a broaderunderstanding of ancient life ways (Buikstra,1991). Buikstra (1991) underscores the need tobuild a truly integrated research design led by thepriority analysis of the mortuary context. Alongwith her fellow scholars, she recommended to focuson the concept of adaptation and biocultural theory(Powell, 1991) and the comparison of multiplelines of evidence within a regional frame ofreference (Smith, 1991). Subsequently, moretheoretical and methodological starting points havebeen provided, designed to sustain and fortify theempirical evidence. Definite progress has beenachieved now in terms of technical procedures andstatistical testing, along with the integration ofbioarchaeologists in many research teams. These,together with a subtler, critical approach to ancienthuman studies, have led to a broader understandingof biocultural dynamics and their role in ancientsociocultural evolvement.

Given the general development ofbioarchaeological research, it is not difficult tounderstand that Maya research has benefited fromits agenda in the past twenty five years, also becausemost of the research has been carried out by non-Mesoamerican scientists, the majority of themworking in North America. The onlyMesoamerican institution that has been offeringformal training in physical anthropology are the

Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia and theUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México, both inMexico City, were research has traditionallycentered around the Central Highlands. In recentyears, the Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán atMérida, Yucatán, has opened a Masters Program inSkeletal Anthropology with strong focus both onforensic investigation and Maya bioarchaeology,promising to promote regionally based research.

Within the broad frame set by bioarchaeology,Maya investigations have tended to blend humanbiological and cultural information mainly throughan ecological, adaptive focus. Anthropologicalstudies that follow this line typically anchor aroundconcepts derived from biodiversity, demography,health and nutrition, physiological adaptation,reproduction and the ecosystem (Saul, 1972;Storey, 1985a, b; 1986; 1992; 1999; Marquez anddel Angel, 1997; Danforth, 1997; Marquez et al.,2002a; Wright and White, 1996; Wright, 1997). Inthe practice, this approach is apt to promotebroader generalization within the field of biologicalanthropology, but has been less suitable to advancethe joint archaeological or socioculturalreconstruction, thus limiting its interpretativepotential to insights into nutritional or healthfactors, without being able to exploring their deepercausal impact in the economic, social or culturalrealms of explanation.

Recently, an attempt was made for a moreintegrated, explicitly social approach in theinterpretation of biocultural practices, coined“archaeology of people”. Resting upon a series ofintegrated theoretical, methodological and practicalconcepts, this proposal was developed byincorporating parameters derived from taphonomy,contextual and social archeology (Schiffer, 1987;Bate, 1998; Tiesler, 1999, 2001a). The model partsfrom the definition of the “individual”, taken as asingular phenomenon constitutive of the system inwhich he or she participates, and considered as thebasic unit of biocultural analysis. A set of conceptswas demarcated to define an “archeologicalindividual”, vestige of the “social individual” firstsubjected to mortuary treatments, later to becomepart of the material record and source of bioculturalinformation. A regional model was developed toconceptualize the social role of the attributes understudy and compare characteristics within the socialframe of reference with promising results on Maya

32 Maya Bioarchaeology

biocultural practices.However, ecological issues and the biological

evidence of social status differences still remain acentral core in general Maya bioarchaeology(Wright, 2004). Towards the end of the ‘90s, twoimportant edited books were published in this field:“Bones of the Maya”, edited by Whittington andReed (1997), and “Reconstructing ancient Mayadiet” that was edited by Christine White in 1999.Both volumes mark the pace of bioarchaeology inthe 1990s, providing a representative overview ofthe increasingly vast information produced onMaya skeletal samples, different attempts ofcombining multiple lines of evidence andmethodologies, many of them new.

“Bones of the Maya”, edited by Whittington andReed (1997), focuses on different aspects of Mayaskeletal studies: osteological, dental and specialstudies (isotopes and DNA). The book stronglypromoted and at the same time consolidated theemerging field of Maya bioarchaeology, for itprovided the state of art in the already variedbranches of regional skeletal research. Acomprehensive list of references on Maya skeletalstudies appears at the end of the volume. It isnoteworthy that the contributors of Bones of theMaya include several archaeologists. With only twoexception (Marquez and del Angel in chapter 4 andLopez Olivares in chapter 8), all authors are non-Mesoamerican scientists whose geographical areasof interest were mostly Guatemala, Belize andHonduras. Some of the contributions go intoefforts to contextualize the skeletal evidence, whileothers are more limited in this respect. Casuisticevidence or sampled information still figuresprominently, apart from methodologicalapproaches. Many of the interpretations thatappear in the chapters’ discussions evolve around anecological frameworks rather than a socio-economictheoretical one, and consequently do not succeed inclosing the chasm between biological and social,cultural and archaeological interpretations. OnlyChase and Chase contextualize the remains understudy according to their taphonomy, intermentposition, location and other related factors.

As from its title, the second volume“Reconstructing ancient Maya diet” focuses ondietary issues. Clearly, as White states in herintroductory chapter, studies on paleodiet are notjust intended to infer on what the ancient Maya

were eating but rather aim at understanding morecomplex and entangled processes that go wellbeyond simple food intake. The volume centerstherefore on subsistence patterns as a fundamentalpiece of evidence and considers broader issueslinked to social structure, economic relationshipsand, ultimately, collapse. Like the piece edited byWhittington and Reed (1997), White’s bookrepresents a milestone in ancient Maya studies inbioarchaeology and a term of comparison for futureresearch on Maya paleodiet. Similarly, it is dividedinto three mayor topics (botanical and faunalanalysis, paleopathology and bone chemistry).Again, no “local” investigators are included in theauthors’ list and all the samples are from Belize,Guatemala and Honduras. All of the manuscriptsthat rested on osteological analyses encounteredthat maize was the basic constituent in the ancientMaya diet; nonetheless variation occurreddiachronically according to social status and amongsites. Most of the authors analyze diet bycontextualizing the pathological evidence displayedby the skeletal remains. These include caries, as asomehow direct indicator of carbohydrateconsumption, along with enamel hypoplasia andante-mortem tooth loss. Secondary indications aregrowth pattern and adult stature. The differentapproaches and lines of evidence succeed inproviding a convincing overall perspective onancient Maya diet in relation to subsistencestrategies and broader social factors. Despite thecentral focus which is mainly limited to diet itself,the volume provides new and alternativeindications that may represent new pedestals forarchaeological studies.

Unfortunately, since the American scholars’attention has been directed mainly to Belize,Honduras and Guatemala, there is presently areduced amount of comparable published data onthe Mexican side of the Maya area. Here, studies onpaleodiet and population generally adapt moreconservative frames, as shown by the work ofMárquez (1982, 1987), Márquez and Miranda(1984) or Márquez et al. (2002b). This region hasbeen the object of later, more recentbioarchaeological studies. Direct correlationsbetween subsistence patterns, paleopathology andsocial status distinguish the work by Cucina andTiesler (2003) on the sites of Calakmul, Dzibanchéand Kohunlich, in the Mexican side of the northern

33A. Cucina & V. Tiesler

Peten area. Social status, as inferred from thearchaeological evidence of place of interment,associated funerary attire and modality ofdeposition, resulted to discriminate between highand low status groups, as well as between sexeswithin the high status one. Stature, health andactivity profile also seem to differ between differentsubsistence patterns and according to status,following a regional study by Tiesler (1999, 2000a,2001a), conducted on skeletons from more thanninety Prehispanic Maya settlements. Other worksrevise the health and put it into context with singlesites’ ecology and economy, like Palenque inChiapas (Márquez et al., 2002b), Xcambó innorthern Yucatan during the Classic period (Cucinaet al., 2003, 2005a) or on the economic, social roleand status of a colonial multiethnic society inCampeche (Cucina, 2005).

Methodologically and topically oriented approaches

In the last twenty years, sophisticatedbiochemical methods have started to proliferate inMaya bioarchaeological research. These newanalytical tools have been borrowed from otherfields of investigation like geology (stable isotopesand trace element), physics or chemistry. Theirincorporation in Maya research has allowed toprovide new answers on old hypotheses onmigration and population history (see Merriwetheret al., 1997; González-Oliver et al., 2001; Hodell etal., 2004; Price et al., 2005; 2006; Wright, 2005)and a more detailed information on diet (White etal., 1993; 2001; Whittington and Reed, 1997;Wright, 1997; Reed, 1999; Nalda et al., 1999;Tiesler et al., 2002a; Tejeda et al., 2002).

Migration patterns and detection of individualprovenance is a fairly recent topic in Mayabioarchaeology. Price and colleagues have beenapplying strontium isotopes analysis to the enamelof the first permanent molars at individual level toassess the place of origin of Pakal, the well-knownruler of Palenque, Chiapas (2006) or at populationlevel to infer on the provenance of African ethnicityindividuals unearthed in the colonial cemetery ofCampeche, Campeche (2005). Such kind of studiesis still at its dawn in the area, but holds enormouspotentials for the new generations of Mayabioarchaeologists and archaeologists alike, as it

allows fresh insights on residential mobility andmigratory dynamics not only of the ruling elite butalso of the general population. These pieces ofevidence are apt to provide a subtler understandingof the complex regional demic, trade, social andpolitical dynamics, which have so far beenexamined almost exclusively through the study ofthe material record.

The application of chemical analysis fornutritional purposes has led to relate nutritionalexpectations to social status in different populations(mainly from Belize and the southern Lowlands),(Tiesler 2001b; White et al., 2001), ecology(Wright and White, 1996; Wright, 1997) and sites’size or relative political importance (Coyston et al.,1999). It has started shedding light on thevariability that existed in terms of subsistencepatterns and access to resources, as well as theproduction system and its socio-political andeconomic consequences.

Parallel to this, a series of dental studies, thatare already widely applied elsewhere, are beingincreasingly adopted also in Maya research, asillustrated by the work on biological affinities bothwithin (Jacobi, 2000; Rhoads, 2002) and amongsites (Lang, 1990; Wrobel, 2003; Sherer, 2004;Cucina et al., 2005b; Cucina and Tiesler, 2006).Dental morphology is of great value in the Mayaarea due to the otherwise poor preservation of theskeletal remains. Most of the studies rested uponthe theoretical concepts originally expressed byAustin (1978) for Altar de Sacrificio and retaken byPompa (1990) at Chichen Itza, all attempting toinfer on internal variability and/or chronologicalcontinuity to answer specific research questions.Recent studies of non-metrical dental traits likethose by Jacobi’s (2000), Wrobel’s (2003), Scherer(2004), Cucina et al., (2005b), and Cucina andTiesler (2006) have elevated the original site by sitescope of these studies to a wider regional level.Although preliminary and hampered by loominginter-observer variations and limited sample size,their results offer a starting point for a new overallappraisal of Maya population and group affinities,evolvement and population dynamics.

Modern techniques and the new awareness ofthe importance of human skeletal remains in thereconstruction of the lost history of ancientcivilizations gather together the information thatmultiple lines of evidence may offer. Examples are

34 Maya Bioarchaeology

the recent multidisciplinary works on dynasticMaya history, such as the studies coordinated byBuikstra et al. (2004) on the Early Classic Copán’sruling elite and the work on the well known rulerof Palenque, Janaab’ Pakal, edited by Tiesler andCucina (2004).

In both cases, direct analysis of the remains intheir taphonomic context benefited from novelmethodological approaches and the explicit goal toreconstruct jointly the biographies of thepersonages under study. The latter study, in whichBuikstra herself participated, centered on the re-examination of the skeleton of the famous Mayaruler, who still rests in his sarcophagus tomb insidethe Temple of the Inscriptions of Palenque, Mexico.Fifty years after the initial study, the newinvestigations were conducted by an internationalteam of experts in skeletal biology, forensics,genetics, histomorphology, Maya archaeology andtaphonomy, and epigraphy. This project, triggeredby several debates that arose around the ruler’sremains since the time of the discovery in 1952,was able to solve the most important controversybetween epigraphy and osteology on the ruler’s ageat death, as well as offer explanations to others. As

for Pakal’s age, epigraphers read an age of 80 years,which doubles the skeletal age estimate publishedfifty years ago. The new information, in almostunanimous consensus among the contributors,revealed an age well over 50 without being able toconfirm the epigraphic readings of 80.

Another line of bioarchaeological research thatis particularly apt to contribute directly tosociocultural studies is that of biocultural practices.These refer broadly to those cultural habits that areprone to leave traces in the skeletal remains. Asregards the ancient Maya, dental decoration andhead shaping were widely practiced in pre-Hispanictimes and have been the focus of severalinvestigations, conducted mostly in earlier years(Buikstra, 1997). Recently, this topic was taken upagain by Tiesler (1993, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000b,2001b). Her evaluation of the regional skeletalmaterial on presence, techniques and visual styles isoriented in an explicitly sociocultural perspective,conceiving biocultural patterns directly as part ofthe information derived from the funerary andbroader archeological context. The results make aconvincing case of the role of biocultural practicesin the Maya life cycle, as emblems of culturalidentity and sometimes used as visible signs of theprivileged. The results and their interpretation,along with new classification parameters, laid newgroundwork for future projects along the same line,although Anglo-Saxon speaking scholars have hasnot taken up so far much of the approach andresults, which were mostly published in Spanish.

Of different origin are those anthropogenicmarks in human remains that denote peri-mortemviolence and posthumous body processing. These,just like the biocultural practice originated duringlife, trace a line of research that hasn’t been fullyexplored yet despite its great potential forintegrated research on ancient Maya ritual conduct.Anthropogenic marks have been discoveredrelatively recently by the Maya scholarlycommunity, which comes as a surprise because awide range of posthumous body manipulations areknown for this area, mainly related to post-sacrificial practices, although ancestral processingwas equally carried out (Helfrich, 1973; Moser,1973; Nájera, 1987). Broadly accepted are themarks of flaying and dismemberment in a skull pitfrom Colha, Belize (Massey and Steele, 1997) andfurther cases have been reported from other sites

35A. Cucina & V. Tiesler

Figure 2 – Pakal’s skeletal remains harbored inthe monolithic sarcophagus tomb in the Temple ofthe Inscriptions, Palenque, Chiapas (Photo byVera Tiesler).

(Tiesler and Cucina, 2003; Tiesler et al., 2002b;Nance et al., 2003; Buikstra et al., 2004).

The Maya “collapse”

The different lines and approaches of Mayabioarchaeological research have encountered acommon goal in the understanding of a researchtheme that has been explored and discussedextensively both from an empirical and theoreticalpoint of view: the so-called “collapse” of Mayahegemonic structures at the end of the Classicperiod. Their disintegration led to the destructionand abandonment of a large number of sites in thecentral lowland regions, eventually to be replacedby other centers that rose to power and politicalimportance further north. The discovery of Mayaceremonial centers, characterized by populationdensities that were in some cases heavier than themodern ones (Haviland, 1970; Culbert and Rice,1990), triggered the question whether the slash-and-burn (milpa) subsistence economy describedethnohistorically could have indeed sustained largerhuman settlements. Moreover, the tropicalecosystem is very fragile to stand the rigors of anextensive milpa economy (White, 1999). Therefore,subsistence practices and diet became the mayorpoint to understand the Maya development anddecline.

The initial theoretical approach to give anexplanation to a widespread phenomenon was theecological one (Coe, 1980; Culbert, 1988; Websteret al., 1992). According to those supporting thismodel, the Maya had overexploited theenvironment and exceeded its carrying capacity tosustain an increasing population. As a consequenceof agricultural intensification, mono-cropping andenvironmental degradation, infections andmalnutrition spread and the demographic structurecollapsed (Cohen and Armelagos, 1984), whichimplied a social and economic decline withimportant socio-political consequences.

Nonetheless, the large acquired data sets onskeletal remains point to the collapse as a way morecomplex problem that cannot be reduced anddescribed by a single model. Marquez and Angel(1997) support the ecological model resting uponthe reduction is stature in Northern Yucatan,though they found that the mayor reduction tookplace between the Preclassic and Classic periods,

hundreds of years before the actual “collapse”. Inturn, Cetina and Sierra (2003) find that atXcambó, a center along the northern coast of thepeninsula, stature was significantly higher thanother inland samples, coupled with low rates ofporotic hyperostosis and cribra orbitalia,supposedly reflecting better and more diversifieddiet in a marshland environment. Despite this,Xcambó fell in disuse around the 8th century AD,apparently not for ecological reasons but mostlikely due to a shift in political and economicspheres (Sierra, 2004). In reality, the ninth-centuryClassic Maya collapse was limited to the southernMaya Lowlands and occurred in a mosaic-likefashion (Shaw, 2003).

Decline for reasons other than the ecologicalones is supported by White (1997) who states thatnutritional and pathological along with politicaland economic factors might have had a key role inthe decline at Lamanai, but at the same time doesnot reject the hypothesis that ecological causesmight have mined the socio-economic basement atPacbitun. Similarly, Wright (1997) argues that thevariability in data from the Pasión Maya lowlandregion indicate a wide array of possible reasonsaccounting for the collapse. Also Danforth (1991)inferred from the heterogeneous reduction instature that the collapse was a complexphenomenon with many patterns of manifestationacross the lowland and it is likely that the possibleexplanations can be pretty diverse.

Although the ecological model is considered aspart of the explanations for the decline of the Mayacivilization, it takes its place among other models(Fash, 1994). In first place, the evidence reportedby the Spaniards in the 16th century of a subsistenceeconomy based on the “milpa” might not haverepresented the economy of the Maya during theClassic period. In this period they had developedhighly intensive and productive technologies forirrigation and land use like raised fields and terraces(Turner and Harrison, 1983). Similarly, other cropsplayed a role in the Maya diversified ecological andgeographical environment, like beans, peppers,tomatoes and staples (Lentz, 1999). Although it ishard to sustain this model on a large regional andchronological scale, it is indicative of the innervariability that distinguishes this civilization. It ismore and more evident that the “collapse” wasconfined to some part of the regions, Palenque,

36 Maya Bioarchaeology

Calakmul, Tikal and Copan to name some of themost famous sites. As the south declined, thenorthern regions were acquiring greater and greaterimportance with sites like Chichén Itzá first andMayapán after that (Folan et al., 2000). Folan et al.(2000) discuss the collapse issue detectingenvironmental draughts as an important naturalfactor for the decline, even though they also stressthe multicausal issue, where ecological, nutritional,environmental, economic and political reasonundermined the inner structure of a society thatwas undergoing an internal disruptive process.

In this perspective, Maya bioarchaeology is notto be intended as the biocultural research of ahomogeneous context where only limited sets ofexplanation hold true, rather an assortment ofregionally, socially and ecologically distinct entitiesthat in some cases might have followed differenttrajectories (see Powell, 1991 for a similar overviewof the Mississippians in North America).

Discussion

Almost four decades have passed since thepioneering studies by Haviland (1967) and Saul(1972). Since then, the anthropological studies ofthe ancient Mayas have blossomed thanks to thecombined contributions of many scholars usingmultiple lines of evidence. With the years, botharchaeologists and bioarchaeologists have grownincreasingly aware of the importance of newertechniques to promote what is known on theancient Maya. The ecological model of collapse hasbeen called into question only by the time that dietcould be reliably investigated by means of stableisotopes composition of skeletal remains and whenother lines of evidence turned in their valuablecontributions. That maize was the crop in ancient(and nowadays) Maya culture is a matter of fact. Interms of nutrition, it represented the main availablesubsistence element throughout the whole Mayaworld around which the whole subsistence strategywas built up, with some few exceptions (White,1999). However, it would be erroneous togeneralize on the quantity and quality of maizeconsumption by stating that diet was based onmaize, squash and beans, for extrinsic (ecologicaland socioeconomic) factors influenced the accessand the availability to these as well as otherimportant food resources. The ancient centers were

enormously different in terms of size, geographicallocation, biotic environment, economic, social andpolitical importance, and inner social“stratigraphy”, all pieces of a mosaic that entangledto one another to give shape to a very vast array ofsubsistence strategies (White, 1999; Gerry andKrueger, 1999; Cucina and Tiesler, 2003). Forexample, the tropical inland rain forest stands outagainst the coastal lines for which the marineresources where of paramount importance (Sharer,1994; Glassman and Garber, 1999). At the sametime, the Yucatan peninsula’s northern subtropicalsemi-arid environment with its aquifer geologicalstructure and the lack of surface rivers implied adifferent organization of cultivation and irrigationsystems (Dahlin, 2002). Not taking all theseelements into account in a truly biocultural, holisticfashion, would lead to an unnecessaryoversimplification of our views of this complexsociety. We cannot overlook that the Maya societyspread around an area wider than 250,000 squaredkilometers if only the Lowlands are considered(Webster, 1997).

Sauer (1955: 61) rightly stated that “intimateknowledge of historic sources, archaeological sites,biogeography and ecology, and the processes ofgeomorphology must be fused in patient fieldstudies, so that we may read the changes inhabitability through human time for the lands inwhich civilization first took for.”

Human beings, as individuals or population,are shaped both by biology and culture (Storey,1992). The biocultural approach requiresknowledge or at least consideration, of all thedifferent facets that fashioned the society. The“individual” represents the basic step of analysis,but its contribution should go beyond the simple“biological” information, to place it and its groupfirst into its social, economic and political micro-cosmos and then into the regional macro-cosmosframe.

Another concluding remark refers skeletalpreservation, which still poses a substantial problemin Maya bioarchaeology. It is undeniable thatwithout large samples it is almost impossible tobuild and test hypotheses that are not superficial orat best just indicative of patterns, and that moderntechniques are of paramount importance to get outof the descriptive tunnel to learn more on thisancient society. Wright’s conclusions in her review

A. Cucina & V. Tiesler 37

paper on Maya osteology (2004) put emphasis onthe integration of individual life histories into apopulation approach to understand the ancientMaya biological history. Although statements likethese are correct in terms of population history,they betray at the same time the lack of a widerbiocultural mind-set, one that encompasses at theleast biology, iconography, archaeology andenvironmental history.

So, what is on the horizon? Important stepsahead in Maya research have been made sinceHaviland’s and Saul’s works. It must be underscoredthat nowadays scholars are no longer purelydescriptive, their methodological and statisticalapproaches are rigorously scientific and not much isleft to chance during data recording andelaboration. However, regardless of themethodological know-how and ability to use newtechniques in a practical phase of the analysis, theactual profound knowledge of the ancient Maya iswhat permits to shift from a methodological(though highly sophisticated) application to a trulyinterpretive and theoretical model (see alsoWebster, 1997). After all, as Webster stated almosta decade ago, mayanists have an incredibleadvantage over investigators of many other ancientsocieties in the world, because of the extremely richunderstanding of ancient Maya culture and societysupported by an abundant and rich burial database(1997: 6). It is our task now to canalize these amplesources of information into a unified frame forreconstructing and interpreting ancient Mayapeoples and their life ways.

References

Austin D. M. 1978. The biological affinity of theancient populations of Altar de Sacrificios andSeibal. Estudios de Cultura Maya, 11: 57-73.

Bate F. 1998. El proceso de investigación enarqueología. Ed. Crítica, Grijalvo-Mondadori,Barcelona.

Blakely R.T. (ed) 1977. Biocultural Adaptation inPrehistoric America. University of Georgia Press,Athens.

Buikstra J.E. 1981. Mortuary practices,paleodemography and paleopathology: a casestudy from the Coster site (Illinois). In R.Chapman, I. Kinnes & K. Randsborg (eds):

The Archaeology of Death, pp. 123-132.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

Buikstra J.E. 1991. Out of the appendix and intothe dirt: comments on thirteen years ofbioarchaeological research. In M.L. Powell, P.S.Bridges & A.M. Wagner Mires (eds): WhatMean These Bones? Studies in SoutheasternBioarchaeology, pp. 172-188. The University ofAlabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Buikstra J.E. 1997. Studying Maya bioarchaeology.In S.L. Whittington & D.M. Reed (eds): Bonesof the Maya, pp. 221-228. SmithsonianInstitution Press, Washington.

Buikstra J.E., Price T.D., Wright L.E. & BurtonJ.A. 2004. Tombs from the Copan acropolis: alife history approach. In E.E. Bell, M.A.Canuto & R.J. Sharer (eds): UnderstandingEarly Classic Copan, pp. 191-212. University ofPennsylvania, Museum of Archaeology andAnthropology, Philadelphia.

Cetina A. & Sierra T. 2003. Acercamiento a lascondiciones de vida y nutrición de los antiguoshabitantes de Xcambó, Yuactán. LosInvestigadores de la Cultura Maya, 11: 504-513.

Cobos R. 2003. Prácticas funerárias en las tierrasbajas mayas del norte. In A. Ciudad, M.H. Ruz& M.J. Iglesias Ponce de Leon (eds):Antropología de la eternidad: la muerte en lacultura maya, pp. 35-48. Sociedad Española deEstudios Mayas, Madrid.

Coe M.D. 1980. The Maya. Thames and Hudson,London.

Cohen M.N. & Armelagos G.J. (eds) 1984.Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture.Academic Press, Orlando.

Coyston S., White C.D. & Schwarcz H.P. 1999.Dietary carbonate analysis of bone and enamelfor two Maya sites in Belize. In C.D. White(ed): Reconstructing Ancient Maya Diet, pp. 221-243. The University of Utah Press, Salt LakeCity.

Cucina A. 2005. Procedencia y estatus social de losafricanos en la villa colonial de Campeche: unestudio químico y antropológico preliminar.Estudios de Antropología Biológica (in press).

Cucina A. & Tiesler V. 2003. Dental caries andante mortem tooth loss in the northern Peténarea, Mexico: a biocultural perspective on socialstatus differences among the Classic Maya. Am.J. Phys. Anthropol., 122: 1-10.

38 Maya Bioarchaeology

Cucina A. & Tiesler V. 2006. Las relacionesbiológicas entre poblaciones pretéritas mayasdesde la evidencia de la morfología dental. In R.Cobos (ed): V Mesa Redonda de Palenque.Instituto Nacional de Antropología e História,Mexico City (in press).

Cucina A., Sierra T. & Tiesler V. 2003. Sexdifferences in oral pathologies at the late classicMaya site of Xcambó. Dent. Anthropol., 16: 45-51.

Cucina A., Tiesler V. & Sierra T. 2005a.Marcadores epigenéticos dentales, salud oral yestructura social en el sitio maya de Xcambó,Yucatán. Temas Antropológicos (in press).

Cucina A., Tiesler V. & Wrobel G. 2005b.Afinidades biológicas y dinámicas poblacionalesmayas desde el Preclásico hasta el periodocolonial. Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya,13 (in press).

Culbert T.P. 1988. The collapse of classic Mayacivilization. In N. Yoffee & G.L. Cowggill(eds): The Collapse of Ancient States andCivilizations, pp. 69-101. University of ArizonaPress, Tucson.

Culbert T.P. & Rice D.S. (eds) 1990. PrecolumbianPopulation History in the Maya Lowland.University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Dahlin B.H. 2002. Climate change at the end ofthe Classic period in Yucatan. Ancient Mesoam.,13: 327-340.

Danforth M.E. 1991. Coming up short. Statureand nutrition among the ancient maya of thesouthern lowlands. In C.D. White (ed):Reconstructing Ancient Maya Diet, pp. 103-117.The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Danforth M.E. 1997. Late Classic Maya healthpatterns: evidence from enamel microdefects.In S.L. Whittington & D.M. Reed (eds): Bonesof the Maya, pp. 127-137. SmithsonianInstitution Press, Washington.

Danforth M.E., Whittington S.L. & Jacobi K.P.1997. Appenndix. An indexed bibliography ofprehistoric and early historic Maya humanosteology: 1839-1994. In S.L. Whittington &D.M. Reed (eds): Bones of the Maya, pp. 127-137. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Fash W.L. 1994. Changing perspectives on Mayacivilization. Ann. Rev. Anthropol., 23: 181-208.

Folan, W.J., Faust B., Lutz W. & Gunn J.D. 2000.Social and environmental factors in the Classic

Maya collapse. In W. Lutz, L. Prieto & W.Sanderson (eds): Population, Development andEnvironment on the Yucatan Peninsula: fromAncient Maya to 2030, pp. 2-32. InternationalInstitute for Applied System Analysis,Laxenburg.

Gerry J.P. & Krueger H.W. 1999. Regionaldiversity in classic Maya diets. In S.L.Whittington & D.M. Reed (eds): Bones of theMaya, pp. 196-207. Smithsonian InstitutionPress, Washington.

Glassman D.M. & Garber J.F. 1999. Land use,diet, and their effects on the biology of theprehistoric Maya of Northern Ambergis Caye,Belize. In C.D. White (ed): ReconstructingAncient Maya Diet, pp. 119-132. TheUniversity of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

González-Oliver, A., Márquez L., Jiménez J. &Torre-Blanco A. 2001. Founding amerindianmitochondrial DNA lineages in ancient Mayafrom Xcaret, Quintana Roo. Am. J. Phys.Anthropol., 116: 230-235.

Haviland W.A. 1967. Stature at Tikal, Guatemala:implications for classic Maya demography andsocial organization. Am. Antiq., 32: 316-25.

Haviland W.A. 1970. Tikal, Guatemala, andMesoamerican urbanism. World Archaeol., 2:186-197.

Helfrich K. 1973. Menschenopfer und Tötungsritualeim Kult der Maya. Mann Verlag, Berlin.

Hodell D.A., Quinn R.L., Brenner M. & KamenovG. 2004. Spatial variation of strontium isotopes(87Sr/86Sr) in the Maya region: a tool fortracking ancient human migration. J. Archaeol.Sci., 31: 585-601.

Hooton E.A. 1940 - Skeletons from the Cenote ofSacrifice at Chichén Itzá. In C.L. Hay, R.L.Lindton, S.K. Lothrop, H. Shapiro & G.C.Vaillant (eds): The Maya and Their Neighbors,pp. 272-280. Appleton-Century CompanyInc., New York.

Jacobi, K.J. 2000. Last rites for the Tipu Maya:Genetic Structuring in a Colonial Cementery. TheUniversity of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Klepinger L.L. 1992. Innovative approaches to thestudy of past human health and subsistencestrategies. In S.R. Saunders & M.A. Katzenberg(eds): Skeletal Biology of Past Peoples: ResearchMethods, pp. 121-130. Wiley Liss, New York.

Konigsberg L.W., & Buikstra J.E. 1995. Regional

A. Cucina & V. Tiesler 39

approaches to the investigation of past humanbiocultural structure. In L.A. Beck (ed):Regional Approaches to Mortuary Analysis, pp.191-219. Plenum, New York.

Lang C.A. 1990. The Dental Morphology of theAncient Maya from Lamanai and Tipu, Belize: aStudy of Population Movement. Master Thesis,Trent University, Petersborough, Ontario(Canada).

Larsen C.S. 1997. Bioarchaeology. InterpretingBehavior from Human Remains. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Lentz D.L. 1999. Plant resources of the ancientMaya. The paleoethnobotanical evidence. InC.D. White (ed.): Reconstructing Ancient MayaDiet, pp. 3-18. The University of Utah Press,Salt Lake City.

Márquez L. 1982. Playa del Carmen - una Poblaciónde la Costa Oriental en el Posclásico. ColecciónCientífica 119, Instituto Nacional deAntropología e Historia, México, D.F..

Márquez L. 1987. Qué sabemos de los mayaspeninsulares a partir de sus restos óseos. InMemorias del Primer Coloquio Internacional deMayistas, pp. 43-56. Universidad NacionalAutónoma de México, México City.

Márquez, L. & Miranda T. 1984. Investigacionesosteológicas en la península de Yucatán. InInvestigaciones Recientes en el Area Maya, XVIIMesa Redonda, pp. 49-61. Sociedad Mexicanade Antropología, San Cristóbal de las Casas.

Marquez L. & del Angel A. 1997. Height amongPrehispanic Maya of the Yucatán peninsula: areconsideration. In S.L. Whittington & D.M.Reed (eds): Bones of the Maya, pp. 51-61.Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Márquez L., Jaén M.T. & Jiménez J.C. 2002a. Elimpacto biológico de la colonización enYucatán: la población de Xcaret, Quintana Roo.In C. Serrano & L.A. Vargas (eds): AntropologíaFísica Latinoamérica, vol. 3, pp. 25-42. UNAM,Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas,Mexico City.

Marques L., Hernandez P.O., & Gomes A. 2002b.La población urbana de Palenque en el Clásicotardío. In V. Tiesler, R. Cobos & M. Greene(eds): La Organización Social Entre los Mayas,pp. 13-34. INAH/UADY, Mexico City.

Massey, V.K. & Steele D.G. 1997. A Maya skull pitfrom the terminal classic period, Colha, Belize.

In S.L. Whittington & D.M. Reed (eds): Bonesof the Maya, pp. 62-77. Smithsonian InstitutionPress, Washington.

Merriwether, D. A., Reed D.M. & Ferrell R.E.1997. Ancient and contemporarymitochondrial DNA variation in the Maya. InS.L. Whittington & D.M. Reed (eds): Bones ofthe Maya, pp. 208-217. Smithsonian InstitutionPress, Washington.

Moser C.L. 1973. Human Decapitation in AncientMesoamerica. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington,D.C.

Nájera M.I. 1987. El Don de la Sangre en elEquilibrio Cósmico. Centro de Estudios Mayas,Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,México City.

Nalda E., Tejeda S., Velásquez A. & Zarazúa G.1999. Paleodieta en Dzibanché y Kohunlich:diferenciasy tendencias preliminares.Arqueología, 21: 35-44.

Nance R.C., Whittington S.L. & Borg B.E. 2003.Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Iximché.University of Florida, Gainesville.

Owsley D.W. & Jantz R.L. 1994. Skeletal Biology inthe Great Plains. Migration, Warfare, Health andSubsistence. Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington D.C.

Pompa J.A. 1990. Antropología Dental: Aplicaciónen Poblaciones Prehispánicas. Serie AntropologíaFísica, Colección Científica 195, InstitutoNacional de Antropología e Historia, MéxicoCity.

Powell M.L., Bridges P.S. & Wagner Mires A.M.(eds) 1991. What Mean These Bones? Studies inSoutheastern Bioarchaeology. The University ofAlabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Price D.T., Tiesler V. & Burton J. 2005.Conquerors, conquered, and slaves:bioarchaeological evidence of the early colonialinhabitants of Campeche, Mexico. Am. J. Phys.Anthropol. (in press).

Price D.T., Burton J.H., Tiesler V. & Buikstra J.E.2006. Geographic origin of Janaab’ Pakal andthe Red Queen. Evidence from strontiumisotopes. In V. Tiesler & A. Cucina (eds):Janaab’Pakal of Palenque. Reconstructing the Lifeand Death of a Maya Ruler. The University ofArizona Press, Tucson (in press).

Reed D.M. 1999. Cuisine from Hun-Nal-ye. InC.D. White (ed): Reconstructing Ancient Maya

40 Maya Bioarchaeology

Diet, pp. 183-196. The University of UtahPress, Salt Lake City.

Rhoads M.L. 2002. Population Dynamics at theSouthern Periphery of the Ancient Maya World:Kinship at Copán. Ph.D. Thesis, University ofNew México, Albuquerque. University ofMichigan, ProQuest Information and LearningCompany, Ann Arbor.

Sauer C.O. 1955. The agency of man on the earth.In W.L. Thomas Jr. (ed): Man’s Role in Changingthe Face of the Earth, pp. 49-69. University ofChicago Press, Chicago.

Saul F.P. 1972. The Human Skeletal Remains of Altarde Sacrificio, an Osteobiographyc Analysis, vol.63, n. 2. Paper of the Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology, HarvardUniversity, Cambridge

Scherer A. 2004. Dental Analysis of Classic PeriodPopulation Variability in the Maya Area. Ph.D.Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station.

Schiffer M.B. 1987. Formation Processes of theArchaeological Record. University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.

Sharer R.J. 1994. The Ancient Maya. StanfordUniversity Press, Stanford.

Shaw J.M. 2003. Climate change anddeforestation: implication for the Mayacollapse. Ancient Mesoam., 14: 157-167.

Sierra T. 2004. La Arqueología de Xcambó, Yucatán,Centro Administrativo Salinero y PuertoComercial de Importancia Regional Durante elClásico. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad NacionalAutónoma de México, México City.

Smith B.D. 1991. Bioarchaeology in a broadercontext. In M.L. Powell, P.S. Bridges & A.M.Wagner Mires (eds): What Mean These Bones?Studies in Southeastern Bioarchaeology, pp. 165-171. The University of Alabama Press,Tuscaloosa.

Stephens J.L. 1843. Incidents of Travel in Yucatan.Harper and Brothers, New York.

Stewart T.D. 1943. Skeletal remains fromTajamulco, Guatemala. In B.P. Dutton & H.R.Hobbs (eds): Excavations at Tajamulco,Guatemala, pp. 111-114. University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.

Stewart T.D. 1949. Notas sobre esqueletoshumanos prehistóricos hallados en Guatemala.Antropología e Historia de Guatemala 1:23-34.

Storey R. 1985a. La paleodemografía de Copan.

Yaxkin, 7: 151-160.Storey R. 1985b. Burial and Social Class at Copan,

Honduras: Biological Aspects. 50th AnnualMeeting of the Society for AmericanArchaeology, Dept. Anthropology, Unversity ofHouston, Houston.

Storey R. 1986. Mortalidad prenatal enTeothiuacán y Copan. Yaxkin, 9: 29-42.

Storey R. 1992. Life and Death in the Ancient Cityof Teotihuacan. University of Alabama Press,Tuscaloosa

Storey R. 1999 - Late Classic nutrition and skeletalindicators at Copan, Honduras. In C.D. White(ed): Reconstructing Ancient Maya Diet, pp. 169-182. The University of Utah Press, Salt LakeCity.

Tejeda, S., Tiesler V., Folan W. & Coyoc M. 2002.Nutrición y estilo de vida en Calakmul,Campeche. Los Investigadores de la CulturaMaya, 10: 335-340.

Tiesler V. 1993. Algunos conceptos y correlatospara la consideración del individuo enarqueología. Boletín de Antropología Americana,28: 5-16.

Tiesler V. 1996. Restos humanos como fuente deinformación arqueológica. Aplicaciones en lainvestigación mayista. Cuicuilco, 2: 213-222.

Tiesler V. 1997. El esqueleto vivo y muerto: unapropuesta para la evaluación de restos humanosen el registro arqueológico. In E. Malvado, G.Pereira & V. Tiesler (eds): El Cuerpo Humano ysu Tratamiento Mortuori, pp. 77-89. ColecciónCientífica, Instituto Nacional de Antropología eHistoria, México City.

Tiesler V. 1998. La costumbre de la deformacióncefálica entre los antiguos mayas: aspectosmorfológicosy culturales. ColecciónCientífica/Instituto Nacional de Antropología eHistoria, México, D.F.

Tiesler V. 1999. Rasgos Bioculturales Entre losAntiguos Mayas. Aspectos Arqueológicos y Sociales.Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Nacional Autónomade México, Mexico City.

Tiesler V. 2000a. Eres lo que comes. Patrones dedesgaste oclusal en poblaciones mayasprehispánicas. TRACE, 38: 67-79.

Tiesler V. 2000b. Decoraciones Dentales Entre losAntiguos Mayas. Ediciones Euroamericanas,Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia,México City.

A. Cucina & V. Tiesler 41

Tiesler V. 2001a. Patrones ocupacionales ysubsistencia en la sociedad maya de la costapeninsular. Consideraciones bioculturales.Mayab, 14: 30-41.

Tiesler V. 2001b. La estatura entre los mayasprehispánicos. Consideraciones bioculturales.Estudios de Antropología Biológica, 10: 257-273.

Tiesler, V. & Cucina A. 2003. Sacrificio,tratamiento y ofrenda del cuerpo humano entrelos mayas del Clásico: una miradabioarqueológica. In A. Ciudad, M.H. Ruz &M.J. Ponce de León (eds): Antropología de laeternidad: la muerte en la cultura maya, pp. 337-354. Sociedad Española de Estudios Mayas,Madrid.

Tiesler V. & Cucina A. (eds) 2004. Janaab’ Pakal dePalenque. Vida y Muerte de un GobernanteMaya. Universidad Nacional autonoma deMexico, Mexico City.

Tiesler V., Tejeda S. & Sierra T. 2002a. Nutrición ycondiciones de vida en la costa norte de lapenínsula durante el Clásico: una visión desdeXcambó, Yucatán. Memorias del XV Simposio deInvestigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, pp.863-873. Museo Nacional de Arqueología yEtnología, Guatemala City.

Tiesler V., Cucina A. & Romano A. 2002b. Vida ymuerte del personaje hallado en el Templo XIII-sub, Palenque: I. Culto funerario y sacrificiohumano. Mexicon, 24: 75-78.

Turner B.L. & Harrison P.D. (eds) 1983.Pulltrousers, Swamps: Ancient Maya Habitat,Agriculture and Settlement in Northern Belize.University of Texas Press, Austin.

Webster D., Sanders W.T. & van Rossum P. 1992 -A simulation of Copan population history andits implications. Ancient Mesoam., 3: 185-197.

Webster D. 1997. Studying Maya burials. In S.L.Whittington & D.M. Reed (eds): Bones of theMaya, pp. 3-12. Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington D.C..

White C.D. 1997. Ancient diet at Lamanai andPacbitun: implications for the ecological modelof collapse. In S.L. Whittington & D.M. Reed(eds): Bones of the Maya, pp.171-180.Smithsonian Institution Press, WashingtonD.C..

White C.D. (ed) 1999. Reconstructing Ancient MayaDiet. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

White C.D., Healy P.F. & Schwarcz H.P. 1993.Intensive agriculture, social status and mayadiet at Pacbitun, Belize. J. Anthropol. Res., 49:347-375.

White C.D., Pendergast D.M., Longstaffe F.J. &Law K.R. 2001. Social complexity and foodsystems at Altun Ha, Belize: the isotopicevidence. Lat. Am. Antiq., 12: 371-393.

Whittington S.L. & Reed D.M. (eds) 1997. Bonesof the Maya. Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington.

Wright L.E. 1997. Ecology or society? Paleodietand the collapse of the Pasión Maya lowland. InS.L. Whittington & D.M. Reed (eds): Bones ofthe Maya, pp. 181-195. Smithsonian InstitutionPress, Washington D.C..

Wright L.E. 2004. Osteological investigations ofancient Maya lives. In C.W. Golden and G.Borgstede (eds): Continuities and Changes inMaya Archaeology: Perspectives at the Millenium,pp. 201-215. Routledge Press, New York.

Wright L.E. 2005. Identifying immigrants to Tikal,Guatemala: defining local variability instrontium isotope ratios of human toothenamel. J. Archaeol. Sci., 32: 555-566.

Wright L.E. & White C.D. 1996. Human biologyin the Classic maya collapse: evidence frompaleopathology and paleodiet. J. World Prehist.,10: 147-198

Wrobel G.D. 2003. Metric and Non-Metric DentalVariation Among the Ancient Maya of NorthernBelize. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Indiana,Indiana.

42 Maya Bioarchaeology